Warren Faidley/Getty Images Everyone has a storm story – whether it’s that time you just escaped a downpour, or the hailstorm that wrote off your car. Even though hailstorms are relatively rare, they cause significant damages.

Two new studies shed light on how hail might change as the world warms. In our study, published today in Nature Climate Change, we show that hail conditions may move towards the poles with global warming and shift a bit from summer to winter.

This could lead to more hailstorms in places such as northern Europe, Canada, southeastern Australia and New Zealand’s South Island. Another new study led by Shiyi Zhang at Peking University shows that hail may also become more damaging.

Hailstorms are costly. In Australia in 2025, hail in New South Wales and Queensland caused A.9b in insurance claims, and in recent years severe storms have caused enormous losses globally. Severe storm costs are increasing.

Much of this increase is because people and assets are more exposed to storms as populations increase and cities expand. But is climate change also playing a role? How does hail form? To get hail you need a thunderstorm, and to get a thunderstorm you need an updraught.

Updraughts form when buoyant air rises in a localised area. They bring up water vapour, which condenses into clouds made of tiny water droplets. Inside a storm those drops hit each other, and if it’s cold enough, liquid drops freeze onto ice particles, growing them into hailstones.

For hail to affect us at ground level, a strong updraught needs to keep hailstones aloft for long enough to grow, and the hailstones must then survive melting as they fall to Earth’s surface.

Wind shear, or shifts in wind with height, increases storm severity by moving falling rain and hail away from the updraught, so the updraught is not inhibited and can grow stronger. Buoyancy and wind shear form the basic atmospheric “ingredients” required for hail.

How might climate change affect hailstorms? Climate change is warming the atmosphere and adding moisture to it. Moisture is the fuel for storms, and a warmer atmosphere is more likely to make strong updraughts that can support larger hail.

A warmer atmosphere also melts falling hail faster, which might make hailstones shrink or melt away before they reach the ground. So, these two changes work against each other. According to past research, the broad expectation of climate change’s impact on hail is that it will bring less frequent hail, but the hailstones will be larger when hail does happen.

That’s because more melting would mean smaller hail reaches the ground less often, but stronger updraughts would enable larger hailstones. However, these changes vary regionally, depending on variations in the delicate balance between hailstorm ingredient changes.

Global climate models generally can’t tell us about individual storms, let alone hailstones – think of a low-resolution image that only shows the broad picture but no details. So, instead of looking at hail directly, our study examined how the ingredients for hailstorms change.

Because the exact relationships between ingredients and hail risk remain unclear, we used several so-called “proxy” relationships, including one that we previously developed for Australia and the wide range of weather regimes here. New global projections for hail frequency We applied three proxies to outputs from eight climate models to look at a range of possible future warming scenarios.

First, the proxies and models agree that in the warming scenarios hail-prone conditions are shifting toward the poles – decreasing across mid-latitudes in the southern hemisphere, and increasing in mid-high latitudes, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

We project more frequent hail conditions in northern Europe, Canada and the northwestern US, southeastern Australia, and the South Island of New Zealand; and less frequent hail conditions in northern Australia, most of Africa, southern India and southeastern China.

Changes in normalised annual hail-prone days in climate projections under 2 (a) and 3 degrees Celsius (b) of mean global warming. Red shows increases and blue shows decreases in hail-prone day frequency. Hatched areas are where there was more model and proxy agreement.

For full details see Raupach et al., 2026. CC-BY, Tim Raupach, UNSW Sydney Second, our results predict less frequent hail conditions in summer and more in winter. That means winter crops like wheat may see increasing risk, while risk may decrease for summer crops like maize.

If climate change shifts arable regions closer to the poles, these crops may be subjected to increased hail frequency there. Third, the different proxies don’t always agree, particularly in the tropics where some show increases and others decreases.

These disagreements highlight the difficulties in estimating changes in hail environments and how that connects to whether hail happens. Less frequent, but more damaging What about the severity of hail when it occurs? Zhang and colleagues took a different approach to ours.

They applied a model of hailstone growth and melting to climate simulations, to examine possible hail sizes and changes in potential damage they might cause. Their new global simulations overall predict more large hailstones and fewer small ones.

This result is in line with previous reasoning – a warmer atmosphere can melt smaller hailstones away but produce larger hail through stronger updraughts. Like ours, their study shows regional differences in changes. Both studies show increasing hail risk with increased frequency and hail damage potential in the mid-high latitude northern hemisphere and southeastern South America.

In sub-tropical regions of Africa and northern South America, both studies show decreasing hail risk. In southeast US, mid-northern Africa, southern India, and northeastern Australia, we project decreasing frequency while Zhang and colleagues project increasing damage potential.

These two studies point to increasing risk from hail damage in a warming world, even though the details of where this will be experienced are still not clear. The more warming occurs, the more this risk will increase.

Quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the surest way to blunt the most damaging effects of climate change.

Timothy H. Raupach’s role at UNSW receives funding from QBE Insurance, which had no role in the design of this study.

He receives funding for other projects from the Australian Research Council, Guy Carpenter, and Aon Japan.

Steven Sherwood receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Minderoo Foundation.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/03/climate-change-may-shift-hailstorms-towards-earths-poles-new-study/

This year’s federal budget has been the most controversial since the Abbott government’s 2014 budget, with Labor struggling to sell its new capital gains tax changes and crackdown on trusts. Its changes have produced howls of outage from those potentially affected, and criticism from some experts.

But there have been notable supporters of the changes. Those in favour find some echoes of past tax reform from the Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello years. We’re joined on today’s podcast by Graeme Samuel, the former head of the national competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

He’s a long-time participant in and observer of economic reform, including helping, as the head of a business group, usher in the goods and services tax (GST) back in the 1990s under the Howard Coalition government.

Samuel says the latest budget’s reforms “are actually quite mild” compared to how much Australia was transformed in the 1980s and 1990s.

What Treasurer [Jim] Chalmers has done here is to try and remove the distortions that have been built into the [tax] system through successive governments – I have to say primarily Coalition governments – which have feather-bedded, if you like, those that have got vested interests.

For example, in investing in capital and taking capital gains at an extraordinarily generous 50% discount rate. Samuel says the fierce criticism of the Labor changes shows why politicians have been scared of real reform for too long.

For decades now, we have asked, urged, exhorted, pleaded with our politicians to bring about tax reform. So Treasurer Chalmers does it in this budget – and look at the hue and cry and the cries of woe and doomsday that have flowed.

The problem with tax reform is that it’s very complex. It’s very complex indeed. And probably the best economist that’s been able to explain it in all this has been Saul Eslake.

And he puts it […] very, very simply: why should wage earners pay more, bear a greater share of the burden, for the provision of our hospitals, our schools, our police force, and our defence, than those who have got the benefits of capital gains, tax concessions, and the use of trusts?

Samuel says some media outlets had given people with “vested interests” against the budget too much uncritical coverage. They’re ably assisted, unfortunately, by sections of our traditional media. And we know who they are at present.

As you read the traditional media, particularly the financial press and The Australian, you don’t actually have to read the articles. You look at the byline, you know immediately what’s going to be said.

It is quite extraordinary.

It reminded him of the “end of the world” claims he heard back more than two decades ago, when he was the National Competition Council’s president and helping the Howard government introduce the GST.

When we did that, there were esteemed (or self-esteemed) economists who said that this was going to be the end of the world, that what it will do is to bring in rampant inflation. And small businesses will fail, like a tsunami had hit them.

It didn’t happen. Didn’t happen. We’ve got the GST today. On supermarket competition The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken legal action against supermarket giants Woolworths and Coles. Last month, the consumer watchdog had a win when a court found Coles had misled shoppers with its “Down Down” discounts.

Asked about the supermarkets’ public reputation, he agreed they’ve “copped a reputation battering” – but argued some of that has been unfair.

The real problem that Coles and Woolies have had to face has been the slagging of them by a combination of politicians and […] at least one of my predecessors [… Yet] there’s been the opinion expressed by Justice O’Bryan in the federal court that says there’s no price gouging here, there’s been no excessive pricing.

A 2025 ACCC report found “the supermarket industry is highly concentrated”, with two-thirds of supermarket grocery sales made at Woolworths and Coles, leaving only a small share for competitors such as Aldi and independent stores. But Samuel said there’s now stronger competition than many people realise, including from online retailers.

Amazon is proving to be a very significant competitor in this area […] What we’ve got now is some very vigorous competition occurring, to the point that Aldi now is having to reduce prices to ward off the competition coming from Coles and Woolworths.

Who would have thought that would occur? On fuel prices The ACCC was given another .7 million over four years in last month’s budget to strengthen competition and consumer law enforcement, with much of for monitoring petrol pricing.

Yet Samuel said there’s nothing the ACCC can do to significantly change petrol prices. I’m sorry, I have to laugh every time I hear about petrol price monitoring. Because, you know, we used to do it back in when I was there as chair, and I had a full report on petrol prices and the like.

There is nothing the ACCC can do about petrol prices, other than to be sure that there is proper competition occurring, that there are no price fixing arrangements occurring between retailers and the like.

But in the end, petrol prices are set by international factors.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/03/politics-with-michelle-grattan-graeme-samuel-on-doomsday-attacks-on-the-federal-budget/

Australia’s economy grew by 0.3% in the first three months of 2026, slowing from 0.9% growth at the end of 2025, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. Over the year to March, gross domestic product (GDP) rose 2.5%.

But GDP per person – our total GDP, divided by our population – actually fell 0.1% in the quarter. This shows Australians were not necessarily feeling better off, despite the economy still growing overall. The weaker-than-expected growth result is likely to reinforce the likelihood of the Reserve Bank leaving interest rates unchanged at its June meeting, after lifting rates in February, March and and May.

While inflation remains a concern, today’s figures suggest those rate rises were already beginning to weigh on household spending and economic activity. Higher fuel prices took a toll The Middle East war, which began on February 28, had a clear effect on Australia’s economy through higher fuel and fertiliser prices.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) noted automotive fuel prices rose sharply towards the end of the March quarter. The federal government’s fuel discounts only started on April 1. Households responded by spending more on essentials and cutting back elsewhere.

Discretionary spending was very weak, suggesting many consumers were becoming more cautious. Spending on electricity, gas and other fuels also rose sharply after energy rebates ended, while spending on operating vehicles increased amid concerns about petrol and diesel supplies.

Which parts of the economy grew? The strongest part of the economy was investment. Private investment rose strongly, led by a large jump in machinery and equipment investment. The ABS said this reflected increased business investment in data centres in New South Wales and Victoria.

That investment boom highlights one important theme: businesses are continuing to invest heavily in digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence, despite a challenging economic environment. The GDP figures suggest Australia’s economy is becoming increasingly split in two.

Sectors linked to data centres, engineering services, IT consulting and construction are expanding rapidly, while many consumer-facing industries remain under pressure. Household consumption also grew – but the increase was concentrated in essentials, rather than discretionary spending.

That is not a sign of strong consumer confidence. It suggests households were spending more because some necessary items became more expensive, or they may have been worried about supply chain shortages. Read more: How reducing ‘just in case’ purchases can help avoid empty shelves and fuel bowsers Which parts of the economy shrank?

Net trade was the main drag on growth. Exports fell while imports rose. The fall in exports was driven by coal and iron ore, with bad weather disrupting port operations. Imports rose partly because of record imports of automatic data processing equipment, linked to data centre investment.

Government spending also fell, partly because energy bill relief ended. Mining saw also the largest industry decline, with coal production hit by Cyclone Koji. Consumer-facing services were weak. Retail trade, accommodation and food services, and arts and recreation all reflected subdued discretionary spending.

Watching for a per person recession The key question is whether this is just a temporary slowdown, or the start of a more worrying loss of momentum. The economy is still growing, but GDP per person has fallen.

This happens when a country’s population is growing faster than its economy. And that matters because GDP per person is a better guide to living standards than headline GDP. Households are also saving less, which suggests many are absorbing higher costs by dipping into their savings.

If GDP per person falls again in the June quarter, Australia would enter a per capita recession. That would not mean the whole economy is in recession, but it would mean the average Australian is going backwards.

The June quarter will therefore be important to watch. It will show more clearly how households are responding to higher fuel prices, higher interest rates and weaker confidence. What does it mean for interest rates?

The Reserve Bank board meets on June 15–16. Growth has slowed, GDP per person has fallen, and discretionary spending is weak. These are all signs that higher interest rates are already weighing on households and the broader economy.

At the same time, the Reserve Bank cannot ignore inflation risks. Fuel prices rose sharply late in the quarter, construction prices are still rising, and the end of energy rebates has lifted household out-of-pocket costs.

The Reserve Bank’s own forecasts suggest headline inflation is likely to peak in the June quarter. Just after the Reserve Bank published those forecasts, Treasury released its own as part of the May federal budget.

Treasury expected inflation to peak at around 5%. If the Middle East conflict ends soon, it expects inflation to fall back within the Reserve Bank’s 2–3% target band by this time next year. But if the war goes on longer, it could climb much higher.

This week’s wage rise for low-paid workers, as well as the latest inflation data and unemployment figures, will all be part of the board’s discussion. That is why each interest rate decision is so difficult.

As Reserve Bank board member Ian Harper acknowledged this week, it’s always harder to sleep the night before the board makes a rate decision: Maybe not a sleepless night […but] you have to make a decision which, as you well know, affects every single person in this economy.

And that bears on you in the middle of the night, usually about 2.30 in my case. On balance, this GDP data strengthens the case for the Reserve Bank to hold rates in June and wait for more evidence, before deciding whether another increase is needed in August.

The Reserve Bank’s challenge is now even harder: bringing inflation back under control, without pushing an already slowing economy into a deeper downturn. Read more: Interest rates look set to hold, after inflation and fuel costs fell in April.

But it’s unlikely to last

Stella Huangfu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/03/australias-economy-slows-as-households-tighten-their-belts-while-ai-investment-surges/

Igor Suka/Getty A nutritious diet is one of the key ways to stay physically and mentally fit. Research suggests it may reduce your risk of developing various conditions, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

Diet may also help protect against depression and other mental health concerns. But for some people, eating so-called “clean” foods can become an obsession. And social media can exacerbate this. So what is “clean eating”?

And when could it be harmful? A concerning trend The term “clean eating” refers to a collection of eating behaviours that are highly focused on “proper nutrition”. These behaviours can become obsessive, as they are often based on restrictive eating patterns and avoiding foods considered to be “unhealthy” or “impure”.

Clean eating has gained traction in the nutrition space, particularly on social media. Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok have popularised messages about avoiding processed products and only eating “pure” foods. However, these messages most often come from wellness influencers, not health-care professionals.

This means the line between balanced nutrition and overly restrictive eating practices is becoming increasingly blurred.

Read more: How unhealthy ultra-processed foods are designed and marketed to make us crave them The difference between ‘clean eating’, disordered eating and having an eating disorder The general concept of clean eating is not inherently harmful.

However, it may become a problem if a person’s eating habits are bound by strict rules and are tied to their self-worth. As a result, they may feel anxious or guilty if they eat so-called “impure” or “unhealthy” foods.

Disordered eating is a broad term for problematic eating behaviours that don’t meet the clinical criteria for an eating disorder diagnosis. However, disordered eating can still negatively impact physical and psychological health. For example, it can involve skipping meals, chronic dieting, binge eating, compulsive exercise, body image concerns and an intense preoccupation with food.

An eating disorder is a clinically recognised mental illness that persistently and negatively affects eating behaviours and related thoughts about food, body weight, or body shape. Eating disorders can have serious impacts on physical and mental health and, in some cases, can even be life-threatening.

Examples include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Orthorexia nervosa – defined as an excessive preoccupation with healthy eating – is not recognised formally as an eating disorder. However, it is associated with the “clean eating” movement.

People with orthorexia nervosa may create very strict rules about eating which, if broken, can negatively affect their physical health, social relationships and overall quality of life. Research suggests various factors may interact in complex ways to contribute to disordered eating.

Genetics, dieting, personality traits such as perfectionism, anxiety, body image concerns, social pressures, family experiences and exposure to appearance-focused messages can all potentially increase a person’s risk of disordered eating. These factors interact differently in each person, meaning some people may be more vulnerable to developing disordered eating than others.

However, researchers are yet to fully understand these interactions. Read more: What’s the difference between an eating disorder and disordered eating? When ‘clean eating’ goes too far Clean eating can become harmful if it becomes obsessive.

Some patterns that can be associated with unhelpful relationships with food and eating are: creating increasingly strict rules around food, such as labelling certain foods as “good” or “bad” feeling anxious, guilty or distressed when eating “bad” foods, especially as a reflection of self-worth avoiding social and other events, especially those involving food, for fear of deviating from food-based rules spending excessive amounts of time thinking about, planning or researching food not enjoying the experience of eating, and instead feeling stressed and restricted.

Read more: Why eating disorder recovery is about more than what you eat or weigh How can I help a loved one who may be struggling?

Here are five practical ideas. choose a calm, private time to talk focus on your concerns about their wellbeing, rather than their food choices or physical appearance aim to listen without judgement and understand their perspective avoid arguing about food or trying to convince them to give up their food-based rules encourage them to seek support from a health-care professional.

If you or a loved one are concerned about your relationship with food or your body, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation on 1800 33 4673 or through their online chat.

If you would like to join a global research network focused on better understanding eating disorders and related issues, visit the Consortium for Research in Eating Disorders.

Professor Gemma Sharp receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council through an Investigator Grant.

She is the owner and founder of Sharp AI Psychology. She is the founding director of the charity, Consortium for Research in Eating Disorders.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/03/what-is-clean-eating-and-how-can-it-affect-wellbeing/

Daniele Levis Pelusi/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-SA Australia’s data centre rush now rivals the mining boom. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman last week said Australia could become a “data centre capital of the world”. This would come at an environmental cost.

Water use is a common concern. One report estimates AI centres could use billions of litres of water a year. But what do the numbers say? Based on the value derived per megalitre, data centres look less threatening and more likely to be a highly economically productive use of water.

The bigger problems are energy and location. As a new report suggests, electricity demand from data centres could outstrip clean power from renewables and lead to new gas plants. Before committing fully, we need granular detail on how much water and energy these centres use.

What value do we get from water? In the 2023–24 financial year, Australian industries consumed about 17.6 million megalitres of water – about 30 times the water in Sydney Harbour. Of this, agriculture, forestry and fishing consumed about two-thirds of the total – nearly 11.8 million ML.

This water was used to produce goods valued at A$54.6 billion – roughly $4,600 for every megalitre consumed. Compare this to “other industries”, the category covering data centres. A megalitre of water in this sector was valued at $2.3 million – 500 times more value than if used on a farm.

How much water do data centres use? We can only make a rough estimate on water use due to a lack of clear data. Research shows data centres need about 25ML of water per megawatt of capacity.

Australia has about 300 data centres with about 1.3 gigawatts of operating capacity. Using these figures, Australia’s current data centres would use 15,000–35,000ML a year. That would be a fraction of 1% of the water used nationwide – close to a rounding error.

There are three caveats. First, credible estimates of water use vary widely. Second, most estimates – including this article – only count water used directly for cooling. Data centres can be remarkably frugal with this water and getting more efficient.

But data centres indirectly use substantially more in the water used to produce the electricity powering them. Coal, gas and hydro plants all need water. Third, proposed new data centres are much, much larger than existing ones.

Some are seeking between 5ML and 40ML a day. Sydney is set for huge growth in AI data centres. If all 41 in the pipeline or under assessment are built, they would directly use 15–20% of Sydney’s water supply within a decade.

Sydney would bear the strain on water supplies in return for an upfront economic benefit from construction and some ongoing jobs. But the economy wide 6 billion boost to GDP from AI adoption by all industries over the next ten years would be spread nationally.

It would make sense to locate data centres where water is more abundant and cheaper. Energy is a bigger concern than water At present, data centres use just over 2% of the electricity on the National Electricity Market.

This would almost triple to 6% within four years, according to Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation estimates the figure could be 11% within a decade. Energy use isn’t inherently bad. What matters is whether increasing demand will be met by renewables – or gas.

Data centres are hungry for energy. The question is how that demand will be met. Westend61/Getty We need better data – on data centres We can’t manage what we don’t measure. Data centres are a textbook example of a data gap impeding good policy.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics rolls data centres into a broader category. This means we can’t access detailed statistics on how much water or energy data centres use. Nor how much they add to the national accounts.

The federal government has introduced new expectations on water use and efficiency for data centre operators. That’s something. But it’s not the same as a national picture that fits with existing official statistics.

Only one data centre meets the new national water-efficiency rating. Surprisingly, Australia’s National AI Plan has little focus on water and energy. State and federal water ministers have named data centres as an emerging threat to water security.

A Senate inquiry is in progress. We need to track water use better Australia’s water accounts measure how much water every industry uses. But they don’t track how much water is lost to evaporation or value all water used.

Water supply and sewerage are bundled together in even the most detailed view of the national accounts, meaning neither can be seen clearly. So while data centres appear to be a high-value use of water, we can’t confirm it.

There are signs of change. Australia uses the international System of Environmental-Economic Accounting to track water use. This is being rewritten now, in part to address these issues. The national accounts have also begun treating damage to nature as a cost of production.

Both shifts matter, no longer treating the environment as free lunch. To finish the job, authorities will have to properly value all the water used by industries and disentangle data centre data from other industries.

This would turn a noisy debate into a measurable one.

Time to keep tabs on AI Based on the data we do have, we can say Australia’s data centre boom is neither the water villain some fear nor the cost-free miracle its promoters describe.

Instead, it looks like a high-value industry arriving at record speed which is relatively light on water use and fairly heavy on energy.

With better data in hand, the numbers – not the headlines – should decide where the next megalitre and the next megawatt should go.

Michael Vardon is a member of the Australian government’s Technical Advisory Panel for Environmental-Economic Accounting and is on a United Nations team working on environmental-economic accounting.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/03/how-much-water-and-power-will-ai-data-centres-use-in-australia-ironically-we-dont-have-the-data-to-know/

Getty Images Parents know how easily coughs, colds and other infections can move through a household after a child picks up a bug at childcare or school. This puts babies with older siblings at greater risk of serious infectious illness, especially while their immune systems are still developing during the critical first months of life.

Maternal vaccination during pregnancy helps boost babies’ protection. But my new research shows a worrying mismatch: vaccination uptake falls during later pregnancies, leaving babies who would benefit most from maternal immunisation less likely to receive that protection.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, vaccination against pertussis, also known as whooping cough, and influenza is publicly funded and recommended during every pregnancy. These vaccines do not only protect the mother. The maternal antibodies are also transferred to the baby and help protect them.

Previous studies confirm that maternal immunisation substantially reduces babies’ risk of infection and hospitalisation from pertussis and influenza, but my research shows a birth-order pattern of reduced protection. Immunisation falls with each pregnancy Vaccination uptake during pregnancy remains far from universal.

Analysis of current Aotearoa Immunisation Register data for births in the year to June 2025 shows 61% of mothers received a pertussis vaccine and 40% received an influenza vaccine during pregnancy. But these overall figures hide a clear birth-order pattern.

Among first pregnancies, uptake was 69% for pertussis and 45% for influenza. In second pregnancies, this decreased to 63% and 41% respectively. By the fourth pregnancy, these figures had fallen to 38% and 24%. Share of mothers receiving pertussis or influenza vaccination during pregnancy, by birth order.

Data cover pregnancies resulting in births in New Zealand from July 2024 to June 2025. CC BY These recent figures show the birth-order pattern for one year of births. In my research, I examined a longer period, covering births from 2015 to 2023, which allowed me to compare vaccine uptake for the same mother across different pregnancies.

Part of the overall pattern reflects differences between families. Mothers who have more children tend to have lower vaccination uptake overall. But the pattern also appears within families. The same mother is less likely to be vaccinated in later pregnancies than in earlier ones.

This finding fits with a growing body of evidence showing parents’ health-related decisions can vary with a child’s birth order. Previous studies have found later-born children are breastfed at lower rates and are less likely to attend health checks and receive childhood immunisations.

These differences can also begin before birth, with lower use of prenatal care in later pregnancies. A double disadvantage for later-born babies While later-born babies receive less protection through vaccination, they may also face a greater risk of infection.

The family environment plays a role in the spread of infectious diseases. Older children can bring infections home, exposing younger siblings. Studies in other countries have found later-born children have higher rates of hospitalisation for respiratory conditions and receive more prescriptions for contagious diseases early in life.

My study shows this pattern also holds in New Zealand for two diseases targeted by maternal immunisation: pertussis and influenza. Later-born babies were more likely to be hospitalised for these diseases than their earlier-born siblings.

This is concerning from a public health perspective. Babies with older siblings face a greater risk of infection, while their mothers are less likely to receive recommended vaccinations during pregnancy. How health services can respond There are several possible reasons maternal immunisation and other parental behaviours vary by birth order.

As families grow, parents have to divide their time, attention and other resources among more children. This may influence the care and support available during later pregnancies and early childhood. Parents may also learn and adapt as they become more experienced, changing how they approach pregnancy and infant care.

These explanations also point to possible solutions. Evidence from New Zealand suggests gaps in awareness, time constraints and difficulty accessing services can contribute to missed maternal immunisation. These barriers may be exacerbated in later pregnancies, when parents are already caring for older children.

Policy and service efforts that provide clearer information and make vaccination easier to access could therefore be particularly effective if they include a focus on later pregnancies. New Zealand has already been moving in this direction by expanding the settings where immunisation can be delivered, including pharmacies and community midwives.

There is evidence that making maternal pertussis vaccination available through pharmacies increased uptake, particularly for Māori women.

If these changes make vaccination easier to access for busy families, they could help protect babies who currently face the double disadvantage of higher infection risk and lower maternal immunisation uptake.

This research was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

These results are not official statistics. They have been created for research purposes from the Integrated Data Infrastructure which is managed by Stats NZ. For more information please visit https://www.stats.govt.nz/integrated-data/.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/03/babies-with-older-siblings-have-a-higher-infection-risk-but-are-less-protected-through-vaccination/

If you follow wellness channels on social media, you might’ve come across the claim that your grip strength – or how firmly you can squeeze something with your hands – can predict how long you will live.

This sounds far-fetched. Yet the science supports such a connection. But as wellness influencers try to monetise this link, what started as something based on scientific evidence starts to get stretched. Now some influencers claim just strengthening your grip strength can help you live longer.

And it’s not just social media influencers. Mainstream media often follows some similar patterns, overlooking the complexity and nuance of the science and misrepresenting what it means for individuals. So many ideas about what makes us sick, or keeps us well, sound plausible.

Early studies might sound promising. But then something gets twisted. In this series, we investigate how a grain of truth ends up as a common health myth. And we untangle what went wrong along the way.

What the science says The evidence consistently shows a person’s grip strength is a good indicator of their overall health and therefore can act as a proxy for how long they might live. However, grip strength isn’t a driver of longevity.

The strength of your hands doesn’t make your healthier. It indicates how robust the body is, from muscle and nerve function, to the health of your heart and veins, and how your body uses energy.

A typical way researchers have investigated the relationship between grip strength, health and longevity is to measure participants’ handgrip strength by getting them to squeeze a hand-held device called a dynamometer. Then they track participants over time, to see if they developed diseases and how old they were when they died.

For example, a study of around half a million British people aged 40–69 years found a 5kg lower grip strength was associated with an approximately 20% greater risk of dying during the follow up period, which was up to ten years.

The researchers also found muscle weakness, which they defined as having a grip strength of less than 26kg for men and 16kg for women, was associated with a higher overall risk of death as well as a higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease (heart attack and stroke), respiratory disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a number of cancers.

The link is stronger for older people While the relationship between grip strength and health holds for all age groups, in older people it appears to be a particularly good predictor of death, heart attacks, stroke, falls and fractures.

This is because it seems to be exceptionally good indicator of age-related loss of muscle mass (known as sarcopenia), power and resilience in older people. Consequently, some researchers suggest grip strength should be considered a “new vital sign” – alongside more traditional indicators of health such as temperature, pulse, respiration and blood pressure.

The reason grip strength is a less powerful predictor of longevity in younger people compared to older age groups is because most young people are near the upper end of physiological performance. Differences in young people’s health are relatively small compared to the “noise” introduced by measurement error or random variation.

As people age, however, their health varies much more, while the sources of error remain roughly the same. Consequently, this higher signal-to-noise ratio results in a much stronger relationship between grip strength and health in later life.

So how did this turn into hype? The problem with the way some people communicate this is generally an issue of overreach. Things often get muddled and this association can sometimes be turned into a prescription.

When people conflate correlation with causation, they may claim that just doing exercises to improve your grip strength, without improving your overall health, can help you live longer. But just because two variables are linked does not mean that one causes the other.

Improving grip strength is not a magic path to longevity. Rather, it’s a marker or proxy of broader physiological robustness, which influences longevity. Intriguingly, some reels and articles explain the science clearly and highlight that grip strength is a proxy and not a cause, but then, paradoxically, go on to describe ways of increasing grip strength.

This undoubtedly undermines the message that the relationship is not causal. One of the problems seems to be that influencers and journalists sometimes feel it’s not enough to just explain the science: they have to offer actionable health advice or a solution.

This can lead to overreach, where advice is given that goes beyond what the evidence says. In a nutshell We’re all naturally drawn to simple metrics that promise insights into our health and longevity, and grip strength seems to be one of the more useful ones.

Grip strength is a simple and accessible marker that can help predict health and longevity, particularly in the elderly. But improving your grip strength in isolation won’t make you healthier or extend your life.

The most effective drivers of health and longevity remain the obvious ones: staying active, eating a balanced diet, sleeping well, maintaining social connections and managing stress. Read more: How old are you really?

Are the latest ‘biological age’ tests all they’re cracked up to be?

Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/03/can-grip-strength-exercises-actually-help-you-live-longer/

Four federal polls have been released since Sunday. One Nation has taken the primary vote lead from Labor in both the Redbridge and YouGov polls and is tied with Labor in the Morgan poll. Labor held a primary vote lead in Fox & Hedgehog.

If the polls are ranked by the overall vote for One Nation and the Coalition, the F&H poll is Labor’s worst, with the right vote at 52%. The right had 51% in Redbridge, 49% in YouGov and 47% in Morgan.

Labor still led One Nation by respondent preferences in all four polls, though only by 51–49 in Redbridge. In F&H, Labor trailed the Coalition on respondent preferences, but led in the other polls. Morgan and YouGov had polls taken immediately after the budget.

One Nation has gained in both these polls from their post-budget editions. The next federal election is not due until early 2028. If the changes introduced in the budget pass parliament, they will mostly be implemented from July 2027.

Analyst Peter Brent suggests Labor may regain ground if the sky doesn’t fall in after July 2027.

Redbridge poll A national Redbridge and Accent Research poll for The Financial Review, conducted May 25–28 from a sample of 1,005, gave One Nation 31% of the primary vote (up four since the last Redbridge poll in late April), Labor 28% (down three), the Coalition 20% (down two), the Greens 12% (down one) and all Others 9% (up two).

By respondent preferences, Labor led both One Nation and the Coalition by just 51–49, a four-point gain for One Nation and a three-point gain for the Coalition. By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led the Coalition by 52–48, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

Anthony Albanese’s net favourability slumped ten points to -19. Treasurer Jim Chalmers also crashed 13 points to -18.

Greens leader Larissa Waters was down two points to -6, Liberal Andrew Hastie down six points to -6, Angus Taylor down two points to -4, Nationals leader Matt Canavan down two points to -4 and Pauline Hanson up one point to net zero.

Read more: View from The Hill: Could One Nation be the unofficial opposition at the 2028 poll? In a three-way preferred PM question, Albanese had 31% (down two), Hanson 25% (up two) and Taylor 14% (steady). By 55–23, respondents thought the federal budget would be bad for the nation rather than good.

By 48–11, they thought it would be bad for them personally.

On issues, the combined score for the Coalition and One Nation led the combined score for Labor and the Greens by 39–28 on cost of living, 35–29 on housing, 55–20 on immigration, 42–25 on economic management, 42–23 on crime and 42–24 on national security.

The left had a 36–32 lead on healthcare and a 40–24 lead on climate change. The right has gained on issues that were assessed in late April.

YouGov poll A national YouGov poll for Sky News, conducted May 26 to June 2 from a sample of 1,471, gave One Nation 29% of the primary vote (up four since the mid-May YouGov poll), Labor 26% (down two), the Coalition 20% (down three), the Greens 13% (steady), independents 6% (up one) and others 6% (steady).

By respondent preferences, Labor led One Nation by 52.5–47.5, a 0.5-point gain for One Nation. Labor led the Coalition by 51.5–48.5, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition. Albanese’s net approval slumped seven points to -26 with 60% dissatisfied and 34% satisfied.

His net approval has dived 12 points in the last two YouGov polls. Albanese led Taylor as preferred PM by 41–39 (41–38 previously). He led Hanson by 47–41 (50–38 previously). By 46–31, respondents supported One Nation and the Coalition working together to form government.

Among One Nation voters, this was 53–25 support and among Coalition voters 45–28 support. The previous YouGov poll was taken after the May 12 budget, so this poll suggests further damage for Labor and Albanese and gains for One Nation since the immediate budget aftermath.

Fox & Hedgehog poll: combined right vote jumps A national Fox & Hedgehog poll for News Corp, conducted May 25–26 from a sample of 1,700, gave Labor 29% of the primary vote (down one since the late March F&H poll), One Nation 27% (up four), the Coalition 25% (up two), the Greens 10% (down three) and all Others 9% (down two).

By respondent preferences, the Coalition led Labor by 51–49, a two-point gain for the Coalition. This is the first Coalition lead in a poll other than Essential. Labor led One Nation by 54–46, a two-point gain for One Nation.

Albanese’s net approval was down three points to -22, with 51% disapproving and 29% approving. Taylor’s net approval was steady at net zero (29% both approving and disapproving). Hanson was down one point to +8 (44% approve, 36% disapprove) and Chalmers was down five points to -17 (37% disapprove, 20% approve).

Taylor led Albanese as preferred PM by 38–36 (39–35 to Albanese previously). If a teal-style party ran, this poll suggests it would get 6%, with that support coming most at the expense of Labor (down three points to 26% vs the standard question).

There would be no effect on the combined vote for One Nation and the Coalition. Just 28% thought Labor had done enough to deserve re-election while 57% thought it was time to give someone else a go.

But by 44–30 and 45–40, respondents thought the Liberals and One Nation respectively were not ready for government. By 47–19, respondents had an unfavourable view of the federal budget. By 59–20, they did not trust the Labor government’s promise not to introduce taxes on the family home or death taxes in future budgets.

Morgan poll: Labor and One Nation tied on primary votes A national Morgan poll, conducted May 25–31 from a sample of 1,542, gave Labor 27% of the primary vote (down 0.5 since the May 18–24 Morgan poll), One Nation 27% (up 1.5), the Coalition 20% (down three), the Greens 13.5% (steady) and all Others 12.5% (up two).

By respondent preferences, Labor led One Nation by an unchanged 53.5–46.5. Labor led the Coalition by 55.5–44.5, a 2.5-point gain for Labor. By 2025 election flows, Labor led the Coalition by 53.5–46.5, a 1.5-point gain for Labor. Since the budget, One Nation’s support has increased every week in Morgan’s polls.

Morgan had not been friendly for One Nation prior to the budget.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/one-nation-surges-to-first-on-primary-votes-in-two-new-polls/

The United States hosted its first World Cup in 1994. Soccer has changed dramatically in many ways since then – on and off the pitch. As the US (with Mexico and Canada) gets set to host the mega-event once again, more than anything, the tournament’s defining change since 1994 is its sheer scale-up.

The scale-up This scale-up can be clearly quantified. The 1994 tournament featured 52 matches across 32 days with 24 teams. By contrast, the 2026 event (the first three-nation World Cup) will involve 78 matches in the US alone, over 39 days. The competition’s 48 teams are divided into 12 groups, with progression to the knockout stage awarded to the top two teams in each group along with the eight best third-placed teams.

In terms of games, the tournament has doubled in size since 1994. The scale-up is not accidental. It has been driven by the twin forces of globalisation and commodification, alongside a deliberate strategy by FIFA president Gianni Infantino to both protect and extend football’s commercial dominance.

Central to this has been expanding the tournament into non-traditional markets, most notably the US – the world’s largest sports economy – thereby generating substantial financial returns and commercial interest. Infantino and FIFA have faced sustained criticism in global media – ranging from controversial symbolic gestures involving Donald Trump to concerns over ticket pricing.

But the broader outcome is clear: the World Cup has become more expansive and commercially powerful than ever.

Read more: Why Trump and FIFA are perfect bedfellows as the World Cup heads to the US At the same time, FIFA has deepened its claim to global reach by incorporating smaller nations such as Cape Verde and Curaçao, whose combined populations are well under one million.

The scale-up rests on two core dynamics. First, more matches mean more broadcast content, and media rights remain FIFA’s largest revenue stream. Expanding to 104 matches significantly increases the value of rights deals, particularly across participating nations.

Second, expansion broadens FIFA’s political base. By granting more countries access, it strengthens the influence of nations previously on the margins of global soccer. Within FIFA’s voting structure, each member association carries equal weight: the vote of powerhouse Brazil counts the same as that of Curaçao, a recent entrant with a population around 150,000.

At the same time, a larger tournament increases the likelihood that major population centres and emerging consumer markets (such as China, India, and Southeast Asia) will participate, further expanding the World Cup’s commercial reach.

The unresolved question for FIFA is one of limits: how far can expansion go before it dilutes the exclusivity and premium value of the World Cup? The World Game in the US Soccer in the US has grown markedly since the 1994 event.

In many ways, this growth reflects the original intent behind awarding the 1994 World Cup to the States. The 1994 tournament was still the best-attended in history, largely due to the use of National Football League (NFL) venues.

It was granted on the condition that a viable professional league be reestablished following the collapse of the North American Soccer League in 1984. Major League Soccer (MLS), launched in 1996, is now firmly established within the US sporting landscape.

The pathway has also strengthened, with college athletes feeding into MLS and increasingly major European leagues, alongside the expansion of secondary professional and semi-professional tiers. Growth has been especially strong in the women’s game thanks to significant new investment.

The US men’s team, currently ranked 16th in the world, could plausibly make a deep run in 2026. As in 1994, matches this year will largely be staged in football stadiums to maximise capacity. Rule changes and technology FIFA’s rule changes are largely designed to keep the ball in play and increase the tempo of matches.

Measures addressing time-wasting – from stricter control of throw-ins and goal kicks to tighter management of added time – reflect this objective. The 1994 World Cup introduced major reforms, including a ban on back-passes to goalkeepers and awarding three points for a win to encourage attacking play.

Looking to the 2026 event, technological oversight will expand, with Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology applied more broadly to decisions such as second yellow cards and corner calls. Player welfare has also become more prominent: after the extreme heat issues of 1994, mandated drinks breaks will be introduced – one in each half around the 22-minute mark.

Substitution rules have also evolved significantly, increasing from two in 1994 to five regular substitutions, along with an additional allowance for concussion replacements. Same game, different scale Since its codification and even in early filmed matches more than a century ago, soccer’s simplicity has been the foundation of its global dominance.

The sport’s continuity bridges generations.

The leading players of the 1994 World Cup, such as Italy’s Roberto Baggio and Brazil’s Romário, could plausibly compete in the modern game, even if today’s players are generally more physically developed.

Ultimately, despite the scale, global reach and commercialisation of tournaments like the World Cup, soccer’s enduring success lies in its consistency.

The game played on the world’s biggest stage remains fundamentally the same as that played in parks, schools and local grounds; simple, universal and instantly recognisable.

Steve Georgakis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/from-usa94-to-now-how-soccer-has-changed-since-the-last-american-world-cup/

The colonisation of Brazil, which began in the 16th century with the arrival of the Portuguese, caused profound transformations in the lives of Indigenous peoples. This included the spread of disease, loss of territory and violence.

Today, a comparable process is underway, one we are calling “Indigenous digital colonisation.” We have been investigating how growing access to the internet and mobile devices is impacting Indigenous communities, causing significant social, cultural and behavioural change.

Recently, with support from the Association for Consumer Research, American Marketing Association and Transformative Consumer Research, we had the opportunity to conduct an ethnographic study in a series of remote Amazon tribes accessible only by humanitarian flights, such as those carried out by the “Aliança de Esperança” (“Hope Alliance”) mission.

Higor Leite, one of the co-authors of this piece, spent a week in these communities in the state of Pará in the north of Brazil. He observed the residents going about their lives and spoke with them about the impact of the internet on their communities.

The experience was both productive and deeply unsettling. Connecting the disconnected As a research team, we have long argued that inclusion is necessary for people experiencing vulnerability, especially when it comes to accessing resources widely available to the rest of society.

In the communities Higor visited, we closely observed the positive effects of initiatives to expand connectivity in the Amazon. Residents reported meaningful improvements in communication with family members in urban areas and other tribes. Access to essential services has also expanded.

In emergencies, the communities can now quickly contact the health system, receive initial guidance, and arrange aerial evacuation when necessary. In this respect, technology functions as more than a facilitator. It can, in certain cases, save lives.

Beyond health care, internet access opens new pathways to information. Indigenous communities members can now follow and participate in debates far beyond their tribes. During our visits, we noticed that Starlink antennas paired with solar panels had become part of the local landscapes.

What was once a single, communally shared connection is giving way to individualised access, with residents managing their own devices and accounts. A return to a disconnected Amazon is neither realistic nor, at this point, desirable.

At first glance, this represents significant advancement with real potential for inclusion and social transformation. But during our time in the field, we identified an important and under-examined gap: the limited understanding of the side effects of unequal access to technology.

When inclusion becomes exclusion Our conviction that inclusion is a positive process was directly challenged by what was witnessed in the communities. To be clear: we continue to believe that digital inclusion is fundamental for supporting people experiencing vulnerability.

But this fieldwork made clear that the effects are not uniformly positive. Alongside the gains, technology brings a set of less visible, and often unintended, consequences. Intensive use of mobile devices is already widely associated with hyperstimulation, increased screen exposure, and behavioural changes, particularly among young people.

If these effects are a significant challenge in urban areas, the impacts are likely to be more acute in communities experiencing vulnerability, such as Indigenous populations who have had no gradual acclimation. As Higor walked around the communities, he witnessed children and adolescents deeply absorbed in their phones.

Many times, his presence went entirely unnoticed. Groups of people gathered together under trees, but remained isolated from one another, focused on online games, with little or no direct interaction. The impact was intensified at night, when the absence of natural light made the glow of screens all the more visible.

A major health event also occurred in one community during Higor’s stay, which allowed for access to chiefs, teachers and leaders from neighbouring communities. They described similar scenes in their communities, where cell phone use had become compulsive, in some cases comparable to alcoholism or substance dependence.

There were reports of residents inverting their sleep cycles, trading daytime activities for night to maximise their time online. Many had withdrawn from traditional practices, such as hunting, fishing and cultural gatherings. When device use was interrupted, particularly among children and adolescents, many showed signs of withdrawal: heightened aggression, anxiety, verbal abuse and disrupted sleep.

In the most serious cases, leaders described instances of suicide ideation or attempts. This is what we have come to call “Indigenous digital colonisation”. While promoting inclusion, access to technology has also simultaneously caused dependency and put strains on elements of cultural identity that hold communities together.

The parallel to historical colonisation, however, runs deeper than just the metaphor. Hidden risks of Indigenous digital Colonisation Beyond the intensive screen time, other risks arise from exposure to the broader digital environment. A recurring pattern involves scams via WhatsApp and Instagram.

Indigenous people are being targeted through extortion, pressured into financial transfers under threat of having intimate images exposed. There were also accounts of recruitment attempts targeting women in particular, with promises of a better life in urban areas.

These episodes point to something beyond the direct risks of connectivity. There is a significant asymmetry in preparedness between these communities and the digital environment they are now navigating. Distinguishing legitimate content from fraud is a challenge even for people long familiar with the internet.

For communities at an early stage of technological adaptation, with social vulnerabilities, communication barriers, and limited digital literacy, exposure to harm is amplified even further. A connected Indigenous future Our research is in its early stages, and we expect further layers of complexity to emerge as our analysis continues.

Our central premise remains: the digital inclusion of Indigenous people must be preserved and strengthened, given its potential to expand access to rights, services and opportunities. But more work is required. The effects of Indigenous digital colonisation must be understood and mitigated to ensure technological inclusion translates into genuine improvements in wellbeing, rather than new and insidious experiences of vulnerability.

Our research agenda is moving toward applied solutions in four areas: developing structured protocols for internet access in communities producing educational materials on digital safety and privacy raising awareness of risks associated with excessive screen time and building digital literacy within Indigenous communities.

The challenge is no longer simply whether to connect. How access is shaped, mediated, and supported will matter as much as the connection itself.

These communities deserve better than the version of connectivity that has, so far, largely been delivered to them.

Higor Leite receives funding from the Transformative Consumer Research (TCR) Committee, the Association for Consumer Research (ACR), and the American Marketing Association (AMA).

Alison M Joubert receives funding from the Transformative Consumer Research (TCR) Committee, the Association for Consumer Research (ACR), and the American Marketing Association (AMA).

Amelie Burgess não presta consultoria, trabalha, possui ações ou recebe financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que poderia se beneficiar com a publicação deste artigo e não revelou nenhum vínculo relevante além de seu cargo acadêmico.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/indigenous-digital-colonisation-how-the-internet-is-affecting-the-lives-of-indigenous-peoples-in-the-amazon/

Wasana Kunpol/Getty Many Australians have stopped worrying about respiratory viruses. The pandemic has passed and attention has shifted. COVID no longer dominates the headlines, and influenza is often dismissed as a routine winter illness.

But the latest provisional figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) suggest otherwise. In 2025, there were 1,455 deaths in Australia due to influenza. This is the highest number the ABS has recorded in this series of data in modern times.

This is more than in previous peak years, such as 2017 (1,276 deaths) and 2019 (1,072 deaths). COVID continued its long decline as a cause of death. In 2025, there were 1,718 deaths due to COVID, down from 3,908 in 2024 and 4,613 in 2023.

These figures count deaths directly attributed to each virus. The charts below also include deaths where the virus contributed but was not the main cause. More importantly, between August 2025 and January 2026, influenza was the underlying cause of more deaths each month than COVID, a pattern we have not seen since the pandemic began.

None of this means COVID has disappeared. Far from it. But it means the mix of respiratory viruses is changing. There’s also a third respiratory virus that often gets overlooked – respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Looking beyond case numbers When people hear reports that a respiratory virus season is “bad”, they often think about case numbers, meaning the number of people testing positive for a particular disease. But case numbers have become increasingly unreliable.

Most people with a cough, sore throat or fever don’t get tested. Many never see a doctor. Even when they do, they aren’t always tested. And if they are, no test is 100% accurate.

That’s why epidemiologists often pay more attention to severe outcomes such as hospital admissions and deaths. Hospital admissions are generally a better measure than case notifications, but at the moment not all Australian states and territories report them consistently.

That leaves deaths as the most reliable measure for comparing the impact of respiratory viruses over time. The ABS data show that deaths caused by COVID have steadily fallen over the past three years, while deaths caused by influenza have moved in the opposite direction.

In 2024, influenza was recorded as the underlying cause of death in 807 Australians. Last year that almost doubled to 1,455. A big jump like that is unusual for a virus for which we have had vaccines for decades.

Influenza vs COVID deaths One reason influenza appears to be doing so much damage is what we’re comparing it to – COVID – has become less deadly in recent years. Population immunity from vaccination and prior infection has substantially reduced the risk of severe disease.

COVID treatments are also available for people at high risk of severe disease, and hospital staff now have better ways of treating those severely ill. Influenza behaves quite differently. The virus evolves rapidly, and vaccine effectiveness varies from year to year.

As a result, immunity from last year’s infection or vaccination doesn’t necessarily provide much protection against this year’s strains. That is why a new influenza vaccine is needed every year. Some years influenza causes relatively little severe disease.

Other years are much worse. In 2025, we saw one of those years. A late-emerging H3N2 subclade K influenza variant (known as super K) extended the season and was poorly matched to the H3N2 strain in that year’s vaccine.

At the same time, influenza vaccine coverage among Australians aged 65 years and over was around 62%. This is down from 64% in 2023 and well short of the World Health Organization target of 75% for this age group. Read more: Can I get a free flu shot?

And will it cover ‘super K’? Your influenza vaccine questions answered Then there’s RSV Lost in the discussion about flu and COVID is RSV. This is best known as a cause of illness in babies and young children.

But older people can also become seriously ill. In 2025, RSV was the underlying cause of 198 deaths in Australia. However, RSV is often recorded as a contributing rather than underlying cause of death because it can worsen conditions such as chronic lung disease or heart failure.

In 2025, another 392 deaths listed RSV as a contributor. Taken together, this points to RSV playing a much larger role in respiratory deaths – by both contributing to, and being the underlying cause of, death. What does this mean for winter?

So, will 2026 be another severe flu year? We don’t yet know. What is clear, though, is all three viruses are circulating side by side, and any one of them could surge. Early data suggest influenza deaths during January and February were roughly double those recorded during the same period in 2025.

However, these figures can fluctuate considerably early in the year, so it is too soon to draw firm conclusions. COVID deaths remain at relatively low levels, while RSV continues to circulate in the background. Older Australians remain at greatest risk of death from all three viruses.

So vaccination still matters. People aged 65 years and over, aged-care residents, people with chronic health conditions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, pregnant women and young children should be up to date with recommended vaccines.

The 2026 flu vaccine has been updated to better match last year’s troublesome H3N2 strain. Importantly, influenza, COVID and RSV vaccines can all be given at the same visit.

Adrian Esterman receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF and ARC.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/how-flu-overtook-covid-as-australias-deadliest-respiratory-virus/

Gabrielle Henderson/Unsplash Profound changes are ahead for online advertising. At the recent Google Marketing Live event, the tech giant outlined expanded artificial intelligence (AI) systems for digital ads. What will that look like? Picture ads integrated directly into your conversation with an AI chatbot.

Or a discounted price that only you see because an AI system served it based on your browsing behaviour, intent to buy the product, and what’s available locally. And, of course, generative AI tool suites for producing online ads start to finish.

Meta and ByteDance (parent company of TikTok) have similarly accelerated the rollout of their own AI-driven advertising systems. Meta is expanding tools that automatically generate and personalise ad images, video backgrounds, captions and targeting across Facebook and Instagram feeds.

Facebook is offering tools to create personalised ads based on users’ interests and behaviours. Meta Bytedance’s TikTok Symphony suite can generate promotional videos, scripts, AI avatars, dubbed voiceovers, and creator-style content from simple text prompts or product links.

At the same time, ads on these social media platforms are becoming harder to recognise. As one example, Instagram and Facebook recently eliminated their familiar “sponsored” labels in favour of smaller “ad” markers. It may look like a minor interface tweak, but it signals something larger: the steady erosion of clear boundaries between advertising, entertainment, recommendation, and ordinary social interaction.

Dissolving into the flow Social media platforms have engineered ads to mimic organic content. Just think of influencer and creator partnerships, AI-personalised search results, or brands using memes. Increasingly, online ads are less of an interruption to the content you consume.

Instead, they’re designed to dissolve into the flow itself. When companies buy advertising space on social media, ads are automatically disclosed as a commercial message. With partnerships and AI-personalised results, the platforms currently offer limited forms of disclosure.

The result is a blurring of the lines. Products, ideas and political messages are spread through ads that look a lot like all other, non-sponsored content. And the less an ad feels like an ad, the more effective it often becomes.

This is precisely where public accountability starts to break down. For several years, researchers like us, working through projects such as the Australian Ad Observatory and the Australian Internet Observatory, have documented how difficult it already is to observe and analyse online advertising systems.

Our work has examined everything from political advertising and astroturfing campaigns, the marketing of alcohol and unhealthy foods, and the veracity of “green” claims made by advertisers. In many cases, this work depends on relatively simple but crucial forms of signalling.

Researchers need to know what counts as an advertisement, who paid for it, where it appeared, and why it was shown to particular audiences. But those signals are weakening. Blurry and harder to audit A blurred system is harder to audit.

Audiences should be able to recognise when they’re targeted with ads. Without clear ad disclosures, we can’t easily detect or question commercial influence in our feeds and search results. New AI tools intensify this challenge.

Instead of seeing discrete ads in your feed, you might be getting a stream of product suggestions and discounts nobody else sees. This means regulators and researchers can’t even audit them. These personalised, disguised ads could also make product recommendations that are biased and potentially harmful.

For instance, you might be telling an AI assistant that you’re stressed, and suddenly be offered a discount on a case of wine. AI-driven dynamic advertising is highly concerning for products that are unhealthy, harmful or regulated – such as alcohol and gambling.

If ads appear one moment and are gone the next, it’s almost impossible to make sure they comply with relevant regulations. The danger is not simply that users may encounter more advertising. It’s that the underlying commercial and promotional logic and messaging become even harder to see.

Read more: OpenAI will put ads in ChatGPT. This opens a new door for dangerous influence We’re not powerless Australia’s emerging digital duty of care framework offers an opportunity to confront this problem directly.

Much of the current discussion has focused, understandably, on harms such as misinformation, scams, abuse, or risks to children. But opaque advertising systems are also a public interest issue. They shape political communication, consumer behaviour, health information, financial decision-making, and civic trust.

If platforms increasingly profit from blurring advertising and ordinary communication, then stronger positive obligations around disclosure and transparency become essential.

Minimum disclosures for digital advertising on social media should include: consistent and clear human and machine-readable advertising labels across formats and services accessible ad archives for public-interest scrutiny, including AI variations inclusion of meaningful and accurate information about targeting and delivery, and clear identification of AI-generated or AI-mediated advertising, including specifics on how AI was used.

This is not about banning advertising. Nor is it about returning to some imagined “clean” internet untouched by commerce. Advertising has always adapted to new media and will continue to do so. But there’s a fundamental difference between visible persuasion and persuasion that disappears into the infrastructure.

Without clear signals on what is and isn’t an ad, we lose one of the few remaining ways to understand who is shaping the information environments we increasingly depend on every day.

Daniel Angus receives funding from the Australian Research Council through Linkage Project LP190101051 ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’.

He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society, and QUT Node Lead for the Australian Internet Observatory.

Nicholas Carah receives funding from the Australian Research Council through Linkage Project LP190101051 ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’ and Discovery Project DP250102499 ‘The Australian experience of automated advertising on digital platforms’.

He is an Associate Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

He is Deputy Director of the Australian Internet Observatory and Deputy Chair of the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.

Lauren Hayden does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/online-ads-are-becoming-harder-to-spot-but-were-not-powerless-to-stop-it/

Justin Paget/ Getty Images If your child has ever dug their heels in on the morning of the school athletics or cross country day, or refused to speak in front of the class, you’re not alone.

For some children, these kinds of events bring a heavy, anxious feeling: what if I’m the slowest, what if everyone’s watching, what if I get it wrong? For parents, it can be hard to know what to do.

Push too hard and the morning becomes a meltdown. Let them off and you worry you’ve taught them to opt out. Is it ever okay to follow their lead? And how do you give them the best chance of having a go next time?

Why (gently) facing fears matters When we avoid something we’re afraid of, we feel instant relief. That relief is powerful, and it teaches the brain that avoiding worked. Over time, the fear grows and the impulse to avoid gets stronger.

This is true for all of us, not just children. So, in general, it helps for children to face fears sooner rather than later, before avoidance settles in. But that doesn’t mean forcing a child through a panic.

Pushing too hard can confirm to them the situation really is dangerous. It’s worth helping your child face the fear before avoidance takes hold. What that looks like depends on what’s driving it.

Start by understanding what’s going on If you can see a tricky day coming, talk to your child about how they are feeling ahead of time. Ask gentle questions to work out what the resistance is actually about.

Did something happen last time? Is something going on with friends? Is your child worried about failing, being judged, or being laughed at? You might say: I noticed you got really quiet when Dad mentioned athletics day.

Is something about it worrying you? Children won’t always have the words straight away, so give them time. It can help to have these conversations side-by-side rather than face-to-face: at bedtime, walking or driving together.

Without eye contact, children find it easier to think and talk about hard things. Try not to jump in to say “you’ll be fine” or “there’s nothing to worry about”. This can come across as dismissing the feeling, and your child may stop talking.

Just listening can help children open up. Validate the feeling Once you have a sense of what’s going on, let your child know the feeling makes sense before moving to suggesting what to do.

Children find it easier to think about solutions once they feel heard. You might say: I can see this feels really big right now. It makes sense you’re worried. Pause and stay silent for a moment.

They may start crying, which is often part of processing fears. This is often when we are tempted to rescue or reassure them. Instead, try to just remain a supportive presence. You can offer a hug and say, “This sounds really hard”.

Then work out a plan together At this point, help your child think about what taking part might look like in a way that feels safe and manageable for them. You might say: I wonder what might make it easier to go?

What’s one small part of it you think you could manage? Options might be walking the cross country instead of running it, reading the speech to one trusted teacher before presenting to the class, or going along and just observing to start with.

For some events, it’s worth having a quiet word with the teacher too, so the plan works at school as well as at home. The goal isn’t a perfect performance, it’s helping your child take part in a way they can manage.

Try not to rush or pressure them. If they say “I don’t know” acknowledge it can be hard to think when you are feeling worried. Sometimes it helps to take a brief break and come back to explore options later.

On the day You can calmly remind them of what has been discussed. It can help to state what you would like to happen and then provide opportunity for the child to express how they are feeling: It’s time to go.

I know this is not easy and a part of you really doesn’t want to do this. If they become upset, stay close and let the feelings be there. You don’t need to fix it or hurry them through it.

A hand on their back or a quiet “I’m here” is often enough. Children often need to feel their fear before they can move through it. This is where courage grows. Courage isn’t the absence of fear, it’s being able to move forward even when fear is present.

When children see they can carry their worries and still take part, they begin to develop confidence in their ability to cope with challenges. Is it ever okay to follow their lead? Sometimes, yes, if your child is really distressed, a brief step back will help them regain a sense of control.

A one-off opt-out isn’t a problem, and children are allowed to dislike things. The warning sign is a pattern: when avoidance is creeping in more often, or your child is missing out on things they actually want to do.

If there’s a history of bullying, a bad past experience, or their fear and anxiety is starting to limit daily life, it’s worth seeing your GP for a referral to a psychologist who works with children.

How to approach ‘achievement’ and ‘participation’ in general Most of what helps a child “have a go” is built in to the everyday conversations at home, not on the morning of the event. It’s about gently setting expectations: that we don’t always have to win, be the best, or get it right, and that’s okay.

A few themes are worth weaving in often. The first is everyone has different brains and bodies so some things will come more or less easily to each of us. Difference is normal, and worth admiring rather than ranking.

You might say: I loved learning from my colleague Penny at work today. She knows so much about how water works in the environment. The second is that skill is built, not bestowed. Children often think of sport, music or performance as fixed talents you either have or you don’t.

But ability develops with practice. A child who plays sport every day will find running at athletics day easier, because they’ve put in the time, not because they were born for it. The third is to help children notice progress against their own past self, rather than the ranking.

Last week you could swim 20 metres, and now you are swimming almost 30! And the fourth, persisting at something hard is the real achievement. It’s easy to do what you’re already good at. Sticking with the thing that doesn’t come easily is harder, and worth naming when you see it.

I can see how frustrated you are with your reading. Keeping going – when it’s this hard is the bit I’m most proud of.

The goal isn’t a fearless child The goal is a child who learns, over time and in small steps, that they can do hard things, and that being different from the child next to them is okay and a normal part of life.

Elizabeth Westrupp receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

She is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Mental Health & Prevention, affiliated with the Parenting and Family Research Alliance, and is a registered clinical psychologist.

Christiane Kehoe is co-author on the Tuning in to Kids suite of programs and receives royalties from the sale of the facilitator manuals used by clinicians who deliver the parenting groups.

She is affiliated with the Parenting and Family Research Alliance and Deputy Editor of the journal Mental Health & Prevention.

Rebecca Knapp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/how-to-encourage-a-child-to-try-new-scary-things-without-traumatising-them-in-the-process/

In the popular imagination, the phrase “Viking hoard” might evoke images of plunder stashed by marauding Norse pirates. Or perhaps you picture sacred objects hidden by frantic monks in the uproar of a violent raid.

The Galloway Hoard reveals the truth of the Viking expansion was less dramatic. But as the richest Viking-era hoard discovered so far in the United Kingdom and Ireland, it also exposes a more complex and intriguing past.

The hoard was buried in southwestern Scotland around 900 CE.

We owe its recovery to a gold-standard cooperation between Derek McLennan, the metal detectorist who uncovered it in 2014, and the archaeologists who helped preserve it – and are now hard at work to unlock its mysteries.

Traces of a complex maritime world The hoard, which consists of more than 100 items of mostly silver and gold, is currently on display in Sydney at the National Maritime Museum. This is a particularly fitting venue, as it embraces the hoard as a mirror of the Vikings’ legendary seafaring culture.

The exhibition greets visitors with a replica of a Viking-era boat stempost from the Isle of Eigg in Scotland’s Inner Hebrides. It reminds us of the importance of ships for this world, where voyaging the sea lanes was as important as taking the land.

Some of the hoard’s most unique and exotic items open its northern world up to the south and the east parts of the globe. In the exhibit, 3D-printed replicas allow visitors to see these items in all their original splendour.

These include an ornate silver vessel from the ancient Persian Sasanian Empire, a jar carved from Roman-era rock crystal, and Scotland’s earliest surviving fragments of silk. Even the more “local” objects have unexpected features indicating cultural and linguistic complexity around the Viking-occupied perimeter of the Irish Sea.

Viking-era silver armbands inscribed with Old English runes, for instance, point to the persistence of the earlier language in this area despite Scandinavian incursion. One such armband states its owner is Egbert – definitely a pre-Viking English name.

Other pre-Viking English treasures include a cross, rare for having its neck-chain still attached, and seven brooches with Christian and pagan features. This so-called “Viking hoard” then, is actually a material record of overlapping times and places that have been deliberately gathered and buried together.

But who gathered these goods together for burial, and why? What did these items mean to them? Were they venerating them, hiding them, or keeping them safe? And did they mean for the hoard to remain undiscovered for more than a thousand years – or perhaps forever?

The mystery of hoards These questions may never have definitive answers.

Hoards, broadly defined by British archaeologist Eleanor Ghey as buried or concealed items “kept together, perhaps gathered all at once or gradually amassed over time”, fascinate us because they’re as mysterious as they are revealing.

Ghey notes, though, that there are clues to be found in the objects themselves, and where and how they’ve been deposited. The Galloway Hoard’s 900 CE dating comes from its silver and textile items.

Inscriptions on some armbands point to possible collective or even communal ownership. One especially intriguing feature is the hoard’s two layers: a bed of gravel separates a less valuable upper deposit of silver bullion from a lower deposit containing gold and exotic goods from afar.

The upper layer might simply be a later deposit. But some speculate it’s a decoy, designed to stop finders from digging down to the more cherished goods. Perhaps we’ll know someday. Detecting the past The Galloway Hoard’s 2014 discovery is part of a broader explosion of similar significant finds by amateur detectorists.

In 21st-century Britain alone, detectorists have uncovered dozens of Iron Age, Roman, Pictish, Saxon, Viking and late medieval hoards. In 2009, for example, they attracted worldwide coverage after discovering the vast 7th-century Staffordshire Hoard. The public frenzy wasn’t just due to the splendour of the 4500+ objects, but to the serendipity of its discovery by an amateur.

British detectorists have shown commitment to establishing good practice. The National Council for Metal Detecting cooperates with professional archaeology bodies and promotes legal and ethical detecting. The Galloway Hoard’s finding was a model of good practice.

When he realised he’d found something significant, detectorist Derek McLennan downed his tools and contacted archaeologists, who protected the site and goods and contacted the national Treasure Trove Unit. That said, detectorist conduct hasn’t always been so exemplary, as I discovered when researching for my forthcoming Exeter University Press book Detectorists: Feeling for the Past.

In 2015, the discovery of the Viking-era Hereford Hoard resulted in the conviction of detectorists and coin dealers for illegal finding, concealing, and black-market selling of items. McLennan, by contrast, kept his allotted 50% of the £1.98 million (about A$3.7 million) paid by the National Museum of Scotland.

This is surely a modern parable for the importance of sharing, rather than hoarding, the spoils. Treasures of the Viking Age – The Galloway Hoard is showing at Sydney’s Australian National Maritime Museum until October 11

Louise D’Arcens has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/galloway-hoard-exhibit-in-sydney-dives-into-the-secrets-of-the-viking-world/

Mick Tsikas/AAP, Hakim/Canva, The Conversation, CC BY New polling this week put One Nation ahead of Labor in the primary vote for the first time, as the party’s latest policy announcements signal greater political ambition.

One Nation recently unveiled its new oil and gas policy at the Australian Energy Producers Conference in Adelaide. It promises “vastly greater returns” to an electorate “rightly unhappy” with the distribution of Australia’s natural resources.

While One Nation’s gas policy is not entirely new, the party’s growing prominence means announcements will attract greater scrutiny. So, what is the party proposing? Embracing government intervention The Norway-style gas proposal is One Nation’s first substantial intervention in current tax and energy policy debates.

It’s a marked shift away from the social and migration issues that have long defined the party. Norway heavily taxes its oil and gas extraction profits. It reinvests the wealth into the world’s largest sovereign fund to spent on social initiatives.

Echoing the Trump administration’s willingness to buy into resource and technology companies, One Nation’s announcement reflects a broader embrace of economic interventionism: where a government actively modifies a free-market economy. The announcement shows a stark differentiation between One Nation and The Liberal Party on the economy.

And it comes at a time when the parties have increasingly overlapped on issues like migration. Liberal frontbencher James Paterson attacked the policy as socialist. He described it as “borrowed from Venezuela and Hugo Chávez”.

One Nation’s policy Despite the splashy announcement, One Nation’s gas policy was not entirely new. Hanson has pointed to a Norway-style sovereign wealth fund as a model for gas revenue policy since at least 2017.

Senator Hanson has also frequently attacked parliament for being “hostage” to multinationals resource companies operating in Australia. In announcing the policy, Senator Hanson committed One Nation to encouraging more gas and oil exploration and production.

Hanson also said taxpayers should get a “fair share” on profits from Australian resources. Key elements of the policy include replacing the current Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which places a 40% tax on the profits related to the extraction of petroleum, gas and condensate.

Instead, One Nation would give the government the option to take a 30% stake in future drilling projects, with profits directed into a new sovereign wealth fund. It’s not the first time this has been suggested.

Back in May 2017, Hanson proposed One Nation adopt a system of royalties paid on production, saying such a scheme would raise up to $10 billion per year. Tapping into public grievance One Nation’s position sets it apart from both major parties.

Labor and the Coalition hold sharply differing views on energy and Net Zero. But the two parties share common ground on one point: neither supports increased taxation measures on the gas industry, particularly amid global uncertainty caused by the US-Israel war with Iran.

With its policy, One Nation is tapping into real public grievance.

Others, such as The Australia Institute, the Greens, and Independent senator David Pocock have spent years pointing out the same basic unfairness: Australia exports vast quantities of gas, companies profit enormously, and the taxpayer gets very little in return.

But the timing of One Nation’s announcement deserves closer scrutiny. It was not made to a general audience but a gathering of energy industry heavyweights. Reports suggest the announced version was softened after consultations with industry representatives.

Pushing back at the ‘green agenda’ Far-right parties have a distinctive approach to energy policy – they simultaneously cast multinationals as “elites” who take wealth from ordinary people, while advocating for gas drilling expansion themselves. Hanson has adopted US President Donald Trump’s slogan – “drill, baby, drill” – to spruik her party’s approach to fossil fuels.

And she has called on the Labor government to push their “climate change bedwetters” to the side, and expand oil and gas exploration in the interest of energy security. One Nation blames environmental reforms for triggering an energy crisis, which it claims has cost everyday Australians.

Ending net zero is, accordingly, a “massive part” of One Nation’s gas policy, which they claim will safeguard fuel security. Hanson has described One Nation’s policy as “partnering with the oil and gas industry, rather than treating it as the enemy”.

Internal tensions This policy debate risks exposing potential tensions between the federal and state branches of One Nation. Efforts by the South Australian Labor government to repeal a ten-year moratorium on fracking in the south east of the state were blocked by the newly elected One Nation MPs and Liberal Opposition.

The inconsistency between the federal party’s pledge to expand gas exploration and the state branch’s efforts to block it have created headaches for their leader. Hanson distanced herself, dismissing it as a decision for the state branch.

Heading into the next election, One Nation wants contrast with the Liberals on economic interventionism, while setting itself apart from Labor, the Greens and the independents on climate and environmental policy.

It is calculated decision from a party that senses its moment.

Emily Foley receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jordan McSwiney receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Government, and NSW RNA Research & Training Network.

Kurt Sengul receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Government, and NSW RNA Research & Training Network

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/02/hansons-gas-policy-follows-the-far-right-playbook-attack-elites-and-push-for-drilling/